<p>If I were to study a combination of physics and biology at the undergraduate level graduating with a major in physics and a minor in zoology, would that prepare me sufficiently for graduate study into biophysics? Or would I be better off minoring in applied mathematics?</p>
<p>I am looking at GA Tech and MIT at the moment for graduate study. If you have any other suggestions for schools to look at I would greatly appreciate your input.</p>
<p>You definetely need to major in physics or mathematics (preferably physics) for a biophysics PhD. Depending on what your interests are, you can take biology accordingly. Most biophysicists work on molecular structures such as proteins so a zoology minor wont really help with that. I would say Major in Physics and minor in molecular bio or biochemistry. (you are going to have to take a ton of math anyways, so applied math minor may come automatically.)</p>
<p>Thank you both for the replies. I am curious though, could one use an Engineering Physics degree as well? Or would it be wiser to stay with a physics degree from the school’s college of art and science?</p>
<p>You don’t necessarily need to major in physics to be a biophysicist, though having a very strong foundation in the physical sciences is necessary. You can major in biology, chemistry, physics, or engineering or math+a science. You should get some hands on experience in a bioscience research lab of some type, because while biophysical experiments are designed and interpreted using ideas from physics, actually setting them up takes a lot of molecular biology and biochemistry.</p>
<p>Also take a look at schools other than GA Tech and MIT.</p>
<p>Biophysics is a tiny narrow field with little application potential. It’s not actually “physics” the way you think of it, it’s physical chemistry (that is to say, thermodynamics, quantum chemistry and statistical mechanics) applied to biological systems.</p>
yeah. basically what you should do. you could also do bio/biomedical engr, but i wouldnt recommend it. chemE could too.
you really just need the basic ideas of biology/biochem or something. </p>
<p>and don’t worry about how much math you have. if you have a degree in physics, you will be plenty good at the kind of math you’ll need.</p>
<p>
engr physics typically isn’t pointed in the bio direction. its more, traditional physics degree with a specialization in a typical engr field (fluid mechanics, signal processing, circuits/power systems, etc)</p>
<p>
really? some whole fields are kept alive by their biophysical applications. NMR is pretty cool, but the only reason they still get funding is because its the same technology behind MRIs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so thermodynamics and stat mech aren’t physics? and neither is quantum mehcanics (whats the difference between quantum chem and quantum mechanics?)?
and if you go into theory (ie modelling of proteins and stuff), a lot of the stuff is really heavy computationally, so it ends up being modeled classically.</p>
<p>When people say physics, they think of mechanics, electronics and optics. Chemical thermodynamics and quantum chemistry (that is to say, the application of a limited subset of QM topics as they relate to condensed phases and chemical reactions) are taught very differently in physics departments and chemistry departments, but in biophysics, the physical chemistry parts are much more important, going by current biophysics research.</p>
<p>But if you’re that good at physical chemistry why not do ChemE or Materials and make more money? Or even Finance? If you can do theoretical biophysics you can do finance.</p>
<p>NMR’s great. I’ve never seen it used in industry. I’ve used GCMS and HPLC, for liquid/solution state samples. Some other chemists in materials work with XRD, electron microscopes or STM. Never seen anyone use NMR in a factory or analytical lab setting. If NMR got axed I wouldn’t know.</p>
<p>I hope you don’t plan on having a family, buying a home, or saving enough to be able to survive once you hit 45 and are laid off and “overqualified.”</p>
<p>Albeit I am a believer in doing what you love, sschoe has a point that you have to at least consider before choosing the path of science. If you can live with the outcomes, then that is great. If there is doubt, then you need to go back over your options again.</p>
<p>Just my two cents, I’ll be enrolling in a biophysics PhD program in the fall. Biophysics is an incredibly amorphous field. You can see from MIT’s biophysics website ([mit</a> biophysics](<a href=“http://biophysics.mit.edu/MIT_Biophysics/Homepage.html]mit”>MIT Biophysics | Biophysics)) that it encompasses professors from biology, bioengineering, chemistry, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, materials science engineering, and physics, among others. Some of the best biophysicists I know are burned out string theorists. Personally, I have taken maybe 15 physics classes (electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, etc.) 10 chemistry classes (physical chem, organic chem, biological chem, etc.) and one biology class (genetics). I think most people in the field will agree that it is best to learn as much physics and chemistry and then pick up the biology stuff as necessary. Just expose yourself to a lot of science and find out what is most interesting to you. Very few people start out interested in biophysics; I think it is much more common that people become exasperated with condensed matter physics or high energy physics and then find rejuvenation in biophysics.</p>